List Mgmt. 2021 List Management

[Bletch]

It might just be the way that you've written it, but we have 3 ND picks AFTER the Rookie Upgrades (Kennedy and Honey).
However we are going to fill 2 of those spots in the Rookie Draft (LOB and Cottrell).

Kennedy and Honey are already nominated and contracted. LOB and Cottrell are not currently on our list until we re-draft them. We can have our 'extra' draft pick, by making Cottrell wait until the SSP.

Oh ok, I was working on the understanding that 63 and 78 were needed for the rookie upgrades. If that's not true, yes I agree - we could even use all 3 picks at the draft if we wanted to (but would mean both LOB & Cotts miss out - this won't happen of course).

I still think we'll just take the one pick. But who knows! We'll find out soon enough.

 

[Arr0w]

It's not the Kennedy and Honey elevations which effect our numbers (they've already been nominated and contracted), it's more the commitment to re-rookie LOB and Cottrell.

With the 2 elevations, and Jones still on the list, we're at 35-4-1, meaning we have 3 list spots available.
We could choose to add 3 senior players, before Jones goes on the Inactive list.

It seems that we will only take 1 senior player, rookie LOB and Cottrell, and then add a player in the SSP, however, given our list numbers we could take 2 in the draft (currently #25 and #63), take LOB in the rookie draft, then add Cottrell back to the rookie list in the SSP in another 2ish weeks.

Kennedy & Honey have been re-contracted, but they haven't been elevated as yet, so one could remain on the rookie list. With LOB and Cotts off the list already (they were delisted) either one can be retained by the SSP, essentially allowing us to take 2 players come the draft, even though Jones is still technically still on the senior list

I can't find any rule that suggests we can't take this approach

 

[HaydossJ]

Kennedy & Honey have been re-contracted, but they haven't been elevated as yet, so one could remain on the rookie list. With LOB and Cotts off the list already (they were delisted) either one can be retained by the SSP, essentially allowing us to take 2 players come the draft, even though Jones is still technically still on the senior list

I can't find any rule that suggests we can't take this approach

I hope the club goes into tonight with this mindset. Surely?

Assuming we don't split 25, our selection (65ish) is likely going to be the last of the night. I'm wondering if the club sees more value in having 4-5 players train in the pre-season and grant the final list spot with more information?

 

[Arr0w]

I see where you are coming from.

Now: 33 on senior list (inc. Jones); 6 Rookies (inc. Honey/Kennedy, not inc. LOB/Cotts). 1 Cat-B.

Honey/Kennedy as nominated upgrades would make it 35/4. Max senior is 38. 38-35=3. Right?

My assumption was the number of draft picks also took into account the number of slots free across both senior and rookie i.e. 33+6=39. 42-39=3. That might be wrong!!

Either way though, we have a maximum of 3 picks available in the ND, and we've committed to using two of them to upgrade rookies. So while you are right that we have room on the Senior list to take two in the ND (or even 3), we don't have enough draft picks.

So, if we want an extra pick ==> either don't upgrade Honey or Kennedy, or trade for an extra pick (if possible). Then also not re-rookie Cotts.



I don't know - I can't find anything on this either way.

You are making the assumption that we have to elevate both Kennedy and Honey, when we don't, but we can elevate 1 and keep the other on the rookie list

So this is how it could play out

Draft 2 players, use the last pick in the daft to elevate Kennedy only, keep Honey as a rookie. Re-draft LOB as a rookie. At the appropriate time, Jones comes off the list, at the appropriate time we add Cotts as a SSP

 

[Arr0w]

I hope the club goes into tonight with this mindset. Surely?

Assuming we don't split 25, our selection (65ish) is likely going to be the last of the night. I'm wondering if the club sees more value in having 4-5 players train in the pre-season and grant the final list spot with more information?

It is certainly a good option to have a group of players train with us then add one via the SSP as a Jones replacement, but another approach would be to add a tall that we rate around pick 25 and or a player that the club rates in the top 40 is still available at 64

I am just looking at having options rather than having the mindset of "we are only taking 1 player in the draft"

 

[Stamos]

You are making the assumption that we have to elevate both Kennedy and Honey, when we don't, but we can elevate 1 and keep the other on the rookie list

So this is how it could play out

Draft 2 players, use the last pick in the daft to elevate Kennedy only, keep Honey as a rookie. Re-draft LOB as a rookie. At the appropriate time, Jones comes off the list, at the appropriate time we add Cotts as a SSP

Whether Kennedy and/or Honey are elevated to the Senior List (both are already nominated) doesn't effect the picks we can take. We still have, prior to Jones moving to the inactive list, 3 list spots available. We are able to add 3 more senior players, even though it seems we will only add 1.

 

[Arr0w]

Whether Kennedy and/or Honey are elevated to the Senior List (both are already nominated) doesn't effect the picks we can take. We still have, prior to Jones moving to the inactive list, 3 list spots available. We are able to add 3 more senior players, even though it seems we will only add 1.

So essentially we could take 2 new players in the draft if we shift the magnets

 

[Stamos]

So essentially we could take 2 new players in the draft if we shift the magnets

Yes.
If we ignore our agreements with LOB and Cottrell, we could take 3.

From the outside, it would seem logical to make Cottrell wait for the SSP and take 2 ND picks, but everything points to us not doing this.

 

[katmanblue]

As others have said, it's Kennedy and Honey being upgraded to the senior list that is taking 2 draft picks.

I got it wrong too. LOB/Cotters offered rookie spots.

But a shuffle may still occur nonetheless!

Leave either Honey or Kennedy on rookie list. Can still pay them more.

 

[Stamos]

Leave either Honey or Kennedy on rookie list. Can still pay them more.

That won't make any difference to what we can do.
It's the commitment to taking LOB and Cottrell in the rookie draft that is limiting us to only 1 ND pick.

 

[The Bighouse]

That won't make any difference to what we can do.
It's the commitment to taking LOB and Cottrell in the rookie draft that is limiting us to only 1 ND pick.

However if the SSP was used as a later mechanism to get them back at AFL, then they’d end up on the rookie list anyway. Just sign them up immediately.

 

[Stamos]

However if the SSP was used as a later mechanism to get them back at AFL, then they’d end up on the rookie list anyway. Just sign them up immediately.

Yeah, from the outside the logical step would be to use our second pick (now #56) and then take Cottrell in the SSP rather than the Rookie Draft.
Doesn't look like we're going to do this though.

 

[blue healer]

Kennedy & Honey have been re-contracted, but they haven't been elevated as yet, so one could remain on the rookie list. With LOB and Cotts off the list already (they were delisted) either one can be retained by the SSP, essentially allowing us to take 2 players come the draft, even though Jones is still technically still on the senior list

I can't find any rule that suggests we can't take this approach

Perhaps other than the rule of decency. As far as I'm concerned it would be an appalling action by us to dishonour an agreement with any of those four players

 

[Arr0w]

Perhaps other than the rule of decency. As far as I'm concerned it would be an appalling action by us to dishonour an agreement with any of those four players

Not suggesting we dishonour any agreement, but there is nothing wrong in having a discussion with both

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Not suggesting we dishonour any agreement, but there is nothing wrong in having a discussion with both

Could probably use some of the pennis in the kitty Elmer_Judd was talking about as a sweetener.

 

[Coona Blues]

Could probably use some of the pennis in the kitty Elmer_Judd was talking about as a sweetener.

Not touching that post

 

[blue healer]

Not suggesting we dishonour any agreement, but there is nothing wrong in having a discussion with both

A bit unsure of what that discussion would be.

Pretty sure if it was along the lines of "I know we said we'd elevate you but now we'd prefer to keep you on the rookie list on the off chance we can pick up a kid in the 50's that we won't have to de-list in two years" wouldn't be met with a ringing endorsement by either player.

 

[Arr0w]

A bit unsure of what that discussion would be.

Pretty sure if it was along the lines of "I know we said we'd elevate you but now we'd prefer to keep you on the rookie list on the off chance we can pick up a kid in the 50's that we won't have to de-list in two years" wouldn't be met with a ringing endorsement by either player.

It could also go something like this:

Gentlemen (Kennedy, Honey) As you know our main priority was to ensure we could retain you on the list, with X player payments and that won't change. Given the Liam situation, our list management needs have slightly changed, for the the betterment of our list, we were wondering if either of you would be happy to remain on the rookie list, so we could target a suitable replacement. We understand and will respect/honour our commitment to elevate you to the senior list, if thats what you prefer

Player Answer: We prefer to stick to our original agreement, to be elevated to the senior list

Club: Great, thank you for hearing us out

No harm in that conversation

 

[JustaBattler]

The only message I would be giving Honey is you are now a listed /contracted and required player - given half the opportunity that some of the high draft picks have had - he will deliver 4X what they ever will.

 

[blue healer]

It could also go something like this:

Gentlemen (Kennedy, Honey) As you know our main priority was to ensure we could retain you on the list, with X player payments and that won't change. Given the Liam situation, our list management needs have slightly changed, for the the betterment of our list, we were wondering if either of you would be happy to remain on the rookie list, so we could target a suitable replacement. We understand and will respect/honour our commitment to elevate you to the senior list, if thats what you prefer

Player Answer: We prefer to stick to our original agreement, to be elevated to the senior list

Club: Great, thank you for hearing us out

No harm in that conversation

Club rep goes away muttering "just you wait til next year pal"

 

[Arr0w]

Now, just need to find a spine player, somewhere, anywhere

 

[No1Suspect]

Now, just need to find a spine player, somewhere, anywhere

Surely we grab schlensog..... is there a better ssp kpd available?

 

[Arr0w]

Surely we grab schlensog..... is there a better ssp kpd available?

Schlensog, Strnadica, Ballenden, Dean if they go undrafted

 

[thylacine60]

Schlensog, Strnadica, Ballenden, Dean if they go undrafted

I'll need a full tongue reconstruction after stupidly attempting this...........

 

[Arr0w]

I'll need a full tongue reconstruction after stupidly attempting this...........

23 now 203 and 103KG

This from when he was drafted